Froch's resume - nothing legendary

[ny123]

He has fought everyone available in his weight class. Thats the most he can do.

[Salardo]

Don't go overboard

Good resume but some of the **** I'm reading here is embarrassing and the people who say it must have only been watching boxing for 3 years.

Lets break it down.

Jean Pascal - Went on to win 175 lbs title (top win), Lost to 46 year old Bernard Hopkins comfortably after Calzaghe beat Hopkins 3 years earlier
Jermain Taylor - Lost 2/3 fights before Froch including a crushing knock out, ahead on scorecards and stopped late due to his typical stamina problems. KOed badly once again in fight after Froch - Past prime
Andre Dirrell - Obviously a good fighter but who the hell has he beat? Can someone tell me please? does he have any distinctions? Never a champion or anything - Unproven
Arthur Abraham - Beat 1 guy at 168 and that was Jermain Taylor who had lost 3/4 fights with 2 by KO, way too small from the weight and really hasn't done anything at 168, no real notable wins at 160 either.
Glen Johnson - 43 years old... yes I know he beat Roy Jones like 6 years ago but the guy hasn't beat a good fighter in years. Lost 4 of last 6 with only wins being Yusaf Mack and Allan Green - Past prime
Lucian Bute - Champion in his prime but as many are saying.. untested really, never went in with the best and it showed.

Losses
Kessler - Close but clear loss (IMO) to a guy who has been fighting injuries for a while now, not in his prime anymore. Calzaghe beat prime undefeated Kessler.
Ward - Top fighter in the division by a mile, top 10 p4p.. no shame here.


So what we have is a guy who has beat

2 Past prime fighters (Johnson, Taylor)
2 Unproven (Dirrell... Bute to a degree)
1 Too small in reality with no real notable wins (Abraham)
1 Prime top class fighter (Pascal)

The super 6 convinced a lot of people that these guys are Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Duran etc.. Truth is some of them were untested going into the super 6 and some still don't have any real top class wins to generate the hype they get.

Froch beat Kessler in my opinion. and Dirrell beat Froch. but doesnt matter. Froch has an excellent resume and its hall of fame worthy. cause he fought everybody, and beat almost everybody. nowadays it doesnt happen that guys fight everybody, so as far as that is concerned, Froch is one of a kind. Yes, he is also limited in his skills a little bit, but overall he is a very good fighter, determined like nobody else, and for me he is a hall of famer. more deserving than Calzaghe

[blank_frackis]

Picking holes in everyone's record is easy, but you judge people on who they could fight and whether they rose to the challenge. Froch has done that time after time when others wouldn't and he's won most of them.

You can't say over his last 8 fights that there's anyone else he could have fought and ducked. Before that he wasn't a big name - he tried vainly to get Calzaghe to fight him without any success. Nobody says he's an all time great, but the sport is better for having Froch in it and he deserves respect for that.

[SirTomJones]

He has fought everyone available in his weight class. Thats the most he can do.

Rematch Kessler. Rematch Ward. Rematch Bute. Rematch Dirrell.

I think I would like to see a Kessler and Dirrell rematch. That said Dirrell has been inactive for a while.

Failing that time to move up then. Dawson, Cloud or another fight with Pascal.

[Light_Speed]

So tell me, if you constantly face the best fighters in your division over a number of years, you are supposed to be unbeaten?

It's people like you that get fooled by undefeated records. Every true great takes a loss. Why? Because they face the best.

I could care less about an undefeated record but "he faced nothing but top opposition" is not a good argument. It's not who you face it's who you beat.

Huh?

He is winning the majority of his big fights. And so what if he has a few close calls? He's taking on the best. When you do that, things like losses and close fights are going to happen you know?

And thus far, his only one-sided loss is to Ward, who's a top talent with perhaps the makings of one of the best SMWs of all time. Does that bar him for being a future HOFer himself? If so, why?

A few close calls and a schooling. How you lose counts.

Name someone who has a better resume at 168 throughout the divisions history?

Ward and arguably Calzaghe. And Roy's victory over undefeated IBF champion and P4P #2 Toney nearly trumps Froch's resume.

[nomadman]

A few close calls and a schooling. How you lose counts.

As well as who you lose to.

[IronDanHamza]

Ward and arguably Calzaghe. And Roy's victory over undefeated, P4P #2 Toney nearly trumps Froch's resume.

So you've named 3 fighters.

And, please explain how Joe Calzaghe has a better resume at 168 than Froch.

And At Roy Jones.

Yeah, of course his win over Toney is better than anything Froch has done at the weight. Obviously.

But are you going to rank him higher than him at the weight on 1 win? Obviously not.

And the legit one you've named, Andre Ward, in all honesty despite his better qaulity, Froch probably has the stronger resume at the weight as it stands.

So, which part of Froch having the best resume at 168 of all time is not legit?

[pturtle]

He'll say Ward.

Who has an argument, with his 2 wins over Kessler and Froch. But then there's Abraham, and who else?

Froch has the more depth than Ward, as it stands.

But then after Ward, who else is there?

Not many.

Easily has the best resume in that class, Ward might end up with it at the end of the day, it beats Roys run, james toney's run and calzghes run at that class

[RichCCFC]

So you've named 3 fighters.

And, please explain how Joe Calzaghe has a better resume at 168 than Froch.

And At Roy Jones.

Yeah, of course his win over Toney is better than anything Froch has done at the weight. Obviously.

But are you going to rank him higher than him at the weight on 1 win? Obviously not.

And the legit one you've named, Andre Ward, in all honesty despite his better qaulity, Froch probably has the stronger resume at the weight as it stands.

So, which part of Froch having the best resume at 168 of all time is not legit?

Hopkins>Pascal
Kessler>Bute
Eubank>Taylor
Lacy < Dirrell
Bika>Johnson
Jones> Woodhall ?
Brewer ?
Mitchell ?
Sheika ?
Veit ?

[IronDanHamza]

Hopkins>Pascal
Kessler>Bute
Eubank>Taylor
Lacy < Dirrell
Bika>Johnson
Jones> Woodhall ?
Brewer ?
Mitchell ?
Sheika ?
Veit ?

I didn't realise that Calzaghe fought Hopkins and Jones at SMW and @ you trying to say Calzaghe's win over Roy Jones is the same as Froch's win over Abraham.

Eubank > Taylor aswell

Froch's resume at 168 is better than Calzaghe's. That's barely even debatable.